US Conservatives Ally With Boko Haram And Refuse to #BringBackOurGirls

Boko Haram, a radical Islamist terror gang, abducted hundreds of Nigerian girls several weeks ago.  The women of the US Senate gathered in support of the #BringBackOurGirls social media meme.  This is so obviously a good idea that you'd think every decent American could see the wisdom in claiming the moral high ground.  Alas, America's loudest conservative pundits registered their objections to the photo below.

Leading voices on the Right have denounced the photo and its meme as weak and pointless.  They have no idea how wrong they are.  Napoleon Bonaparte said it best:  "The moral is to the physical as three to one."  He meant that claiming the moral high ground is an absolute advantage in fighting a conflict.  It clarifies strategic goals to allies and gives domestic morale a boost.  The West is in a multi-decade struggle with radical Islam.  Every time we demonstrate the moral clarity of Western Civilization, we rally neutral people in the developing world to our cause and force jihadis to explain their atrocities.

The anti-female rhetoric I've heard from my conservative colleagues on this photo is disgusting.  They sound pathetic by trotting out old misogynistic stereotypes that working women have tried hard to banish.  The language some Americans have used to describe the Senators is the kind of verbiage a Salafist sheikh might use to describe his harem.  That is not the face America should present to the world.

These hashtags aren't just photo ops anymore.  Social media that goes viral now drives strategic decision making.  This is the power of "information operations" and I assure you that plenty of people in the US national security establishment take crafting these narratives very seriously.  If you disagree, consider how the US will benefit once we share credit for the girls' safe return.

I'd like to know if any of my fellow conservatives see the irony in all of these anti-hashtag comments in light of the Democratic Party's charge that the GOP engages in a "war on women."  I've seen a bunch of comments criticizing women for wanting girls to be safe.  Meanwhile, the US is doing what it can to help Nigerians bring them back.  Do any of you see how getting behind this message sends a powerful signal to Africans who wonder whether the US stands with their hopes?  Seriously, I'd like some answers.

Do any of you conservatives know what millions of Africans are saying right now?  They are openly questioning the radical Islamic groups that have grown throughout the continent.  They do that specifically because of this incident's notoriety.  Getting Americans on the right side of that message is a powerful adjunct to our diplomacy.  Do you people really not see this?

This isn't about Benghazi.  I'm less interested in placing blame for past oversights than in solving a present problem.  American leaders made plenty of missteps in the Cold War but our bipartisan foreign policy won in the end partly because our messaging to the world was based on a morally sound foundation.  Messages of freedom, dignity, and prosperity matter, just as Ronald Reagan taught us with "Morning in America."  Ronald Reagan also taught us that America would not tolerate Islamic terrorists getting away with the Achille Lauro hijacking; he told other would-be murderers, "You can run, but you can't hide."  I believe the Gipper would be totally on board with hunting down Boko Haram fighters and rescuing their captive girls.

I'm throwing it down right now, people.  Anyone who disagrees with what these women Senators have to say in their hashtag should put up a photo of themselves with a #Don'tBringBackTheGirls tag.  I dare you to do something that stupid.  See how well that plays in 2016 when Hillary's operatives run the "GOP anti-women" canard all over again.  I am amazed that Republicans are willing to cede the moral high ground to both Democrats and Boko Haram out of pure spite.  Conservatives should be better than this if they are to convince Americans that the GOP is fit to govern.

It is true that US foreign assistance programs are sometimes messy.  It is difficult to advance a freedom agenda in authoritarian countries.  We succeeded in countries like South Korea and Thailand even though they had military governments for part of their modern history.  Engagement is hard.  The alternative is to cede contested countries to powers that have clear anti-West agendas.  I'll take the 50% solution if I think it can get to 100% with continued US involvement.

Republicans can't seem to say anything positive about Administration figures who have this crisis on their radar.  Hmmm, the Democrats are doing nothing but tweeting?  I guess the Democratic President who directed our national security team to work with the Nigerians doesn't count.  I know exactly how capable the US can be and that's why all of the partisan criticism I'm seeing here is handcuffing the GOP.

Partisanship during the Cold War stopped at the water's edge, and our bipartisan foreign policy won that competition with the Soviet Union.  Today's conservatives (thanks to some Tea Party nutcases) have so little positive news to offer America that they can't resist harassing our own female political leaders.  American conservatives have done a whole lot more than make themselves look like fools.  They have missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate American resolve in the face of the violent jihadi movements they claim to hate so much.  The conservative loudmouths criticizing the #BringBackOurGirls meme have a profoundly immature understanding of information operations.  They have in fact aligned themselves in support of Boko Haram.  

Africa Brightens Its Day

Africa still wrestles with its colonial legacies.  Pierre Englebert's State Legitimacy and Development in Africa discusses illegitimate states whose modern functions are not contiguous with their pre-colonial functions, partly due to artificially drawn borders.  Their seemingly interminable corruption and inefficiency stem from the difficulty of managing these borders.  These states expend enormous resources supporting themselves instead of funding vital public goods.  State corruption precludes African entrepreneurs from counting on a fair shake from their own leaders.  This provides a window into what is going right in Africa.

Africa has room to grow.  The World Bank's data for Sub-Saharan Africa shows that it lags behind the MENA region in GNI per capita and life expectancy.  MENA's oil-producing countries have their own problems with artificial borders and corruption yet they outperform their southern neighbors.  The oil wealth of the MENA region is not the only explanation for its advantage over the rest of Africa.  A large number of the World Bank's heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) are in Sub-Saharan Africa.  None of the developing MENA countries appear in the HIPC group.  The explanation for the development differential between MENA and Sub-Saharan Africa isn't as simplistic as the presence of oil in the north and the burden of debt in the south.  Knowing that this disparity exists provides a context for national developmental goals; resource-rich African countries can export their way to success rather easily, while debt-burdened countries cannot.  This developmental gap needs further analysis.

Africa has the multilateral institutions it needs.  The African Union and African Development Bank speak for the continent.  Whether they speak for corrupt autocrats or ordinary Africans is up for debate.  State illegitimacy casts doubt on the ability of officials to push true development agendas without lining their own pockets.  Bottom-up agendas can build credibility in areas that top-down agendas can't reach.  Bankers Without Borders' Sub-Saharan program has completed multiple microeconomic assessments that allow investors to bypass dysfunctional state programs.  This philosophy supports the Center for Financial Inclusion's FI2020 goal of maximizing the participation of developing country citizens in the world's financial markets.  Even the UN Research Institute for Social Development recognizes the importance of non-state mechanisms for socioeconomic development.

Africa has the culture and infrastructure for innovation.  Nigeria's "Nollywood" produces more movies than the US.  The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) is like a hybrid of the US's own intergovernmental bodies devoted to innovation.  The Africa Finance Corporation channels investors into infrastructure projects, although its initial capital and membership are limited.  A Google search of that organization with the word "corruption" reveals some troubling early stories of mismanagement.

The World Bank's data on value-added manufacturing reveals that Africa's efforts at developing a hi-tech economy have not yet borne fruit.  The Excel data download comes in handy for regional comparisons.  Both the MENA and Sub-Saharan regions trail the US and world averages for the portion of the economy devoted to value-added manufacturing.  Interestingly, both regions do track fairly closely to the numbers for the HIPC group.  If manufacturing doesn't differentiate MENA from Sub-Saharan Africa, then resource extraction is probably the key difference between those regions.

Development usually follows a clear pattern in the life of most nations, and it is hard to skip from agriculture and extractive sectors directly to high-tech innovation.  The US and Germany were large agricultural producers whose exports produced excess capital available for investment in manufacturing.  Many African nations have abundant natural resources.  They need leaders with the foresight to convert resource exports into capital surpluses for their domestic tech sectors.  The UN's Global Pulse reports on Big Data in development can show African leaders how to leverage their countries' unique gifts.

There is more to Africa than its outdated Western references can describe, just as Dayo Olopade's book The Bright Continent is more than a play on words for Africa's colonial nickname.  Her "kanju" self-starters take a System D approach to innovation.  The M-Pesa mobile payment system is the classic result of this mentality and even MIT Sloan recognizes its value.   Africans don't need to thank the West for its aid.  They should instead thank themselves for remaining open to the possibilities that development brings.  

The Haiku of OSINT for 07/10/13

Power Africa
So many small agencies
Doing the same work

Uncle Sam's Proliferating Development Agencies Will "Power Africa"

I have read the fact sheet on Power Africa, the Administration's new effort to bring economic development to a long-neglected part of the world.  I am totally in favor of a smart US development effort in Africa to counter China's huge influence.  Power Africa is interagency and leverages the private sector; so far so good.  Reading the list of agencies involved has started to make me wonder how the US got so many.

US Agency for International Development (USAID):  This is the oldest official home for foreign aid in the US Government and used to be part of the State Department.  I never understood why it was carved out into a separate agency.  The Executive Office of the President and National Security Council have a span of control that is not infinitely wide.  Every separate agency complicates Cabinet-level accountability, appropriations, reporting, auditing, you name it.  If I could wave a magic wand over Washington DC, I'd put USAID back in State so the White House can more easily pin the rose on a lead agency for an interagency development project.

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC):  This one's been around a while too.  I'm assuming it's involved to reduce the cost of capital for those private companies named as participants in Power Africa. The one private participant that doesn't need any more such breaks is General Electric.  Its GE Capital unit has been tagged "systemically important" and will not be allowed to fail anyway.

U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im):  I'm glad this one is on board but I'd prefer that it target its help to small and medium-size US businesses that want to export to Africa.  The named businesses are all heavy hitters.  Smaller businesses need to attend the Corporate Council on Africa's 9th Biennial US-Africa Business Summit this coming October so they know how to open doors over there.

Millennium Challenge Corporation:  This one is the youngest of the agencies, less than a decade old and designed exclusively to fight poverty.  I just don't understand why it's not part of USAID.  It has the same mission!

US Trade and Development Agency (USTDA):  Here's another miscellaneous independent agency that does the same thing as OPIC and Ex-Im!  It needs to be merged with one of those agencies.

US African Development Foundation (USADF):  Wow, here's another one I've never heard of until now.    It's been around for three decades and now has a clear role to play thanks to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).  It's nice to conceive of these kinds of agencies as entrepreneurial because of their small size and limited oversight, but I just wonder how many others are out there and whether they duplicate something a larger agency does.

BTW, I've also never heard of Africa Finance Corporation but it's in this project too.  They must be the most reputable local partner Uncle Sam could find.  Its multilateral nature means Africans can handle African affairs quite well.

I want Power Africa to succeed.  I also want its enabling agencies to support their private sector partners effectively.  IMHO that will require, at some point, a review of whether some of the federal executive agencies involved are duplicative and need to be merged.  That in itself would set a good example for our African partners who look to the US as a model of transparency and efficiency.

PACOM And AFRICOM Came To San Francisco In Fall 2011

This town is a magnet for lectures from big shots.  In the past two months I've attended lectures from Admiral Robert. F Willard, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and General Carter Ham, Commander of U.S. Africa Command.  Admiral Willard spoke in September on the security opportunities and challenges facing the Asia-Pacific region, and Gen. Ham gave a rundown in November of AFRICOM's activities.  What follows is my comparison of the two commands' approaches to regional security.
The geographic regions covered by each command are simply ginormous, with PACOM covering 36 nations and AFRICOM covering 54 nations (including the world's newest nation, South Sudan).  Both commands implement security cooperation programs with America's regional partners, and by comparing my notes it's obvious which country is the cause for America's concern: China.  Managing the U.S.'s relationship with China is the PACOM commander's biggest stated challenge; countering China's economic influence in Africa is an emerging challenge for AFRICOM.  It's interesting to note that both commanders emphasized China as a competitor and potential partner, not an adversary.  It is probably at least a decade too early to consider China an adversary and even then the Middle Kingdom will have a way to go to prove itself a worthy adversary.  Gen. Ham mentioned that the African countries he's visited use their Chinese-made military hardware in static displays because it no longer operates.

PACOM's vast expanses of ocean now include space and cyber domains as global centers of gravity the U.S. must protect.  This expands the U.S. Navy's role as guarantor of freedom of navigation in the Western Pacific since WWII.  Gen. Ham did not mention space or cyber domains in his talk.  African nations may be unable to afford space programs and anti-satellite weapons, but IMHO we should not underestimate their ability for cyber-enabled asymmetric warfare.  It does not take much capital for an African hacker to disrupt a network with DOS attacks. 

Adm. Willard mentioned China's rising blue water navy.  It is an open secret that China sees aircraft carriers (an 80-year old weapon system) as a source of national pride.  What is not widely reported is that China still views its navy as an adjunct of the People's Liberation Army and not a peer member of a joint team.  That nuance is key to understanding how Chinese doctrine must evolve if their navy is to become a power projection arm that can threaten neighbors.  A navy that can show the flag in the Indian Ocean and conduct counter-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden is a minimally-capable blue-water force.  Evolution into amphibious operations and joint integration will be keys to determining whether Taiwan's independence is at risk.  One more note on Taiwan: It is worth wondering whether the U.S.'s declining arms sales to Taiwan are a sign that China's creditor position as a holder of U.S. sovereign debt gives it leverage over U.S. posture in the Pacific.  Just sayin'. 

Speaking of counter-piracy, AFRICOM does that too.  It also has a role to play in Libya.  Gen. Ham alluded to AFRICOM's initial role in helping plan the allied operation in Libya but then noted NATO's lead; now Libya is back in AFRICOM's hands for post-conflict stabilization.  The need for the transition of C2 in Libya should be made clear.  AFRICOM is configured and staffed primarily for security cooperation, not warfighting.  It is not clear whether AFRICOM's combined air operations center was mature enough to manage an air campaign over a denied theater (i.e., generating a daily air tasking order, tracking BDA, etc.).  The fact sheet for 17th Air Force, AFRICOM's air component, doesn't mention any strike assets.  Perhaps someone in AFRICOM could set the record straight on which command owned which phase of Operation Odyssey Dawn / Operation Unified Protector.  Perhaps someone in NATO could set the record straight on whether NATO's air operations center could truly handle the daily sortie generation rate it was designed to manage. 

Adm. Willard gave some support to my pet theory that there is potential for a new Cold War between China and India.  China isn't just beefing up its armed forces for national pride or to contest the U.S. in the South China Sea.  India is very concerned about the potential Chinese threat to its Arunachal Pradesh region bordering Tibet.  China has never abandoned its claims to what it calls South Tibet. China's leaders know that any slowdown in its economic growth will test the country's social cohesion.  It is easy to envision scenarios under which resurgent Chinese nationalism can tempt Beijing into aggressive adventures.  Adm. Willard mentioned, at various points, India's frustration with U.S. arms sales to Pakistan, India's military-to-military contacts with the U.S., and our two countries' commercial alignments.  New Delhi should not worry so much.  The U.S. flirtation with Pakistan has an expiration date.  A further U.S. alignment with India as a balance-of-power counterweight to China would be a natural evolution. 

Gen. Ham and Adm. Willard both face rogue threats in their regions.  North Korea's erratic leadership has been a thorn in the Pacific's side for sixty years.  Korean culture emphasizes ancestor worship and honoring a family patriarch's legacy, so of course the next generation of the ruling Kim dynasty will continue panhandling via the Six-Party Talks to obtain some donation scheme that is even more generous than the Agreed Framework.  The DPRK raises blackmail and hyperbole to an art form.  The immature stateless threats of Al-Shabaab in Somalia and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb have yet to develop that level of skill in Africa.  That's the thing with non-state actors.  They don't have the cash or connections for nuclear weapons so they have to think outside the box.  Gen. Ham noted that our African partners like getting U.S. advice in logistics, intelligence, communications, and air/ground integration techniques that help fight these threats.  They will need that help if they are to assure world markets that their natural resources are secure and available for development. 

Africa has enormous potential in oil, agriculture, and minerals, as Gen. Ham said.  I predict that China and the U.S. will largely frame their "cooperative" relationship as a question of who gets first access to the untapped wealth of Africa.  Here's the bottom line.  China needs Africa's resources to support its drive for dominance in Asia.  The U.S., India, and other nations know this but aren't ready to publicly counter China's drive as stated policy.  PACOM and AFRICOM have every reason to watch China's moves and help smaller nations in their regions become stronger.  The outline of a new era in global power is emerging.  That's why I attend these lectures.  You are now free to go read something else until I have more great things to say.